CMIP5 Projection of Significant Reduction in Extratropical Cyclone Activity over North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Projections of storm-track changes over the continental United States and southern Canada made by 23 models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) have been compared to changes projected by 11 models from phase 3 of CMIP (CMIP3). Overall, under representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) forcing, CMIP5 models project much more significant decreases in North American storm-track activity than CMIP3 models under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A2 scenario, with the largest decrease in summer and the smallest decrease in spring. The decrease is found both in temporal variance and cyclone statistics, with the frequency of strong cyclones projected to decrease by 15.9%, 6.6%, 32.6%, and 16.9% for winter, spring, summer, and fall, respectively. There is a strong consensus among the 23 models regarding the sign of the projected change, with less than 20% of the models projecting changes in the opposite sign in any of the storm-track parameters examined. Nevertheless, there are also significant model-to-model differences in the magnitude of the projected changes. Projected changes in mean flow baroclinicity have also been examined. Model-to-model differences in the projected storm-track change are found to correlate significantly with model-to-model differences in the projected change in a locally defined mean available potential energy (MAPE) across the ensemble of 34 CMIP5 and CMIP3 models, suggesting that the differences in the projected change in local MAPE can partly account for not only the model-to-model differences but also the differences between CMIP5 and CMIP3 projections. Examination of projected precipitation change suggests that models projecting larger decrease in North American storm-track activity also project a farther northward intrusion of the decrease in subtropical precipitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".